DLink DNS-327L very slow read/write speeds, on gigabit network

[hiohaa]

i bought this 327L with a 4TB NAS seagate drive.
Im getting insanely slow write/read speeds, i mean, ridiculous, 95mbps write, 105mbps down.

My entire network is gigabit.
I am using a free piece of software called LAN speed test (lite). I have a PC connected to a router. There are multiple external drives connected to the PC. I am moving all the data on them to the NAS, also on the network.

I have checked all the data transfer speeds and they are all normal, so from PC to external drive, from PC to another device connected to the network and a switch, all the speeds are perfect.

When i check PC to NAS (which is on the network) i get that 95 up, 105 down. Its terrible, it means when im trying to copy files from my external hard drive to this nice new NAS drive i got to back everything up, its doing it at like 10MB/s! I can't sit around for days.

I have tried upgrading the firmware to the latest version, made no difference. Ive tried a different ethernet cable, thats made no difference. Tried different slots on the router, no difference.
When I run the test, it starts really quickly (in a 1000mb file) then around 800mb it just slows right down)
What the hell do i do?

 

[stevech]

What speed do you get transferring one big file (500MB or so)?

Transferring lots of small-ish files is limited by the file system and SMB overhead.

Opinion: D-link is not top-shelf in NASes or WiFi.

 

[hiohaa]

What speed do you get transferring one big file (500MB or so)?

Transferring lots of small-ish files is limited by the file system and SMB overhead.

Opinion: D-link is not top-shelf in NASes or WiFi.

1000mb file
95mbps write, 105mbps read

Dlink might not be top shelf but that doesn't really help - it should be capable of much higher transfer speeds, and the review sites report back speeds much more in line with what i'd expect, eg,
http://www.trustedreviews.com/d-lin...l-nas-review-setup-performance-verdict-page-2

 

[KOA]

D link is know to be slow.

Anyway, does anyother review mention the same speeds ?

 

[L&LD]

1000mb file
95mbps write, 105mbps read

Dlink might not be top shelf but that doesn't really help - it should be capable of much higher transfer speeds, and the review sites report back speeds much more in line with what i'd expect, eg,
http://www.trustedreviews.com/d-lin...l-nas-review-setup-performance-verdict-page-2

I think the review you linked may be for a RAID0 array? And most likely 7200 RPM drives.


I still think your speeds are low, but as has been mentioned, this is a budget offering and you're only using it with a single drive.

Which model is that drive, btw?

 

[stevech]

1000mb file
95mbps write, 105mbps read

Dlink might not be top shelf but that doesn't really help - it should be capable of much higher transfer speeds, and the review sites report back speeds much more in line with what i'd expect, eg,
http://www.trustedreviews.com/d-lin...l-nas-review-setup-performance-verdict-page-2

if your "mbps" means Bytes/sec, those are good numbers.
If those are LAN speeds in bits/sec, not good.
Please use the convention that "b" is bits and "B" is bytes so we know what you mean.

 

[hiohaa]

if your "mbps" means Bytes/sec, those are good numbers.
If those are LAN speeds in bits/sec, not good.
Please use the convention that "b" is bits and "B" is bytes so we know what you mean.

well, by your own convention, its bits
and to confirm, yes, it was bits.

And ive fixed the problem. It was because of volume encryption.
I did back to back tests. I formatted the drive, disabled volume encryption, and bingo, i get 625/616 mbps (78MBps/77MBps)

Sorted. it does say when you enable volume encryption before formatting that it significantly decreases the throughput.

 

[stevech]

well, by your own convention, its bits
.

B vs. b is universally accepted

 

[azazel1024]

B vs. b is universally accepted

Also it can get a bit confusing, even when using the proper conventions when you mix using both measurements (even when used properly). Also it is ALWAYS big M.

It makes it confusing when someone says mbps...because do they mean Mbps, or did they mean MBps...because they forgot one capitol...maybe they forgot both (or best, to write Mbps and seperately MB/sec to denote Megabits per second and Megabytes per second).

At any rate, I basically only say Mbps if I am talking internet speeds or standards speeds (IE Gigabit connection, Gbps, or GbE if Gigabit Ethernet) and never transfer speeds (in large part because when you are doing something like transfering files and such forth, they are almost always reported in MB/sec or MiB/sec (either millions of Bytes or Megabytes...I think, though I don't know for sure, that EVERYTHING in windows is reported in Kilo/Mega/Giga/Terra, file system certainly is, difference is, there is 1024 Bytes in a Kilobyte, 1024 Kilobytes in a Megabyte, etc...but hard drive manufacturers, and most other standard's bodies use the 10 base measurement as kilo, mega, etc. (IE A gigabit conneciton is actually 1 billion bits per second, a 2 Terabyte hardrive is actually two trillion Bytes, where as all file systems/OS that I know of will report the size as actually 1.86 Terabytes, as they are using that 1024 convention).

Last thing, yeah, volume encryption only you have hardware support for it or it is absolutely critical.

Since it is likely heavily proprietary, I'd also say NO to volume encryption, unless you are doing it "in a box" that you know you'd likely replace with the same box, or the same "kind" of box later if it ever died. IE I'd do bitlocker encryption, because I know if my computer died, I'd have no qualms about buying/building another windows machines and slapping that drive in to it (or slapping it in to one of my other windows machines). Or say, a Synology NAS, I'd probably buy another one if the one I had died, and then slap the old drive in the new one...and so on.

Just like RAID.